Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Roscoe wrote:

Coming from a DOD-trained acquisition killer, both views are correct. What matters is the perspective.

1) Buying more jets cost more in total but less by average cost. The reason the average cost goes down is manufacturing learning curve and "bulk" rates on material etc... Big surprise, right? Also keep in mind that the more jets you buy, the more stable the workforce and therefore less risk. And risk = $$
2) When planning or debating future buys, the fly-away or marginal rate is the proper bean to count
3) When starting a new program or taking a historical look, total program cost is correct.

Issue is, folks pick (2) or (3) based on which side of the "buy" argument they are on and the less informed don't know enough to ask the question. Those of us that are not in that camp just pull our hair out or cry...

Excellent breakdown on this, Roscoe. Thanks.
I'd say I'm in the minority on your "folks pick (2) or (3)..." thing, since, no matter which side of an acquisition issue I am, I like to know the total cost of the program. Some will call me an "F-22 Hater",... not true. I want to know how much came out of American coffers to produce the Raptor.
No matter how you try to say "those costs don't count", someone wrote a check for them to get the F-22 on the ramp.
It makes me curious: had the F-22 been cancelled right at the start of production, with no aircraft being built,... would it have cost ZERO?

F-16.net Sponsor

There is a document called a DD-250 which is used to transfer title of each jet to the Government. It lists the bare price of the airframe and equipment delivered in the jet less the GFP (Government Furnished Property) which is mostly motors. The price on the DD-250 had fallen to less than $100M.

My gosh the raptors reputation was screwed by a bunch of idiots. You have people who factor in R&D and get 350 million per plane (NOBODY EVER FACTORS IN R&D FOR UNIT PRICE!!!) Its around 137-150 million each! Next you have crap like the Washington Post who had the nerve to just erupt with false information. They literally didn't have a single ounce of correct information and the only problem they didn't point out was with the oxygen which turned out to be the only problem that existed. Then you have these crazy misinformed bloggers who go off about crap PowerRossiya and Pierre Sprey says then read some crap from Ausairpower. Its a good fighter just a new one and i dislike how every news article about the raptor jumps to OBOGS.

With costs of R&D factored into the Raptor, it makes me wonder how much the F-15 and F-16 programs would cost with R&D factored in as well as annuity of the dollar. Let's also add the ACTIVE program for the F-15 and the F-16XL in there too for example.

IMHO every plane created has had sunk costs into R&D to make them what they are today - fine war machines that our pilots have made legends of. I hope the Raptor will find its place in history someday just as the F-15, F-16, and the F-4 Phantom were.

mongo wrote:

With costs of R&D factored into the Raptor, it makes me wonder how much the F-15 and F-16 programs would cost with R&D factored in as well as annuity of the dollar.

Probably a lot more than people realize. The problem with the F-22 is that because it wasn't fielded with full A/G capabilities initially, and a few other issues with datalink compatibility, it hasn't been deployed into combat.

mongo wrote:

IMHO every plane created has had sunk costs into R&D to make them what they are today - fine war machines that our pilots have made legends of. I hope the Raptor will find its place in history someday just as the F-15, F-16, and the F-4 Phantom were.

What a lot of the critics forget, is that the much "feared" Su-30 series hasn't seen combat, and the Su-27, has seen very little combat, mainly 2008 South Ossetia war and hasn't gone against western fighters before, so its not like the Raptor is alone in its lack of actual combat experience.

mongo wrote:

I hope the Raptor will find its place in history someday just as the F-15, F-16, and the F-4 Phantom were.

Unless it ends up in some sort of shooting conflict, it's place in history will be quite limited, and controversial.

huggy wrote:

mongo wrote:

I hope the Raptor will find its place in history someday just as the F-15, F-16, and the F-4 Phantom were.

Unless it ends up in some sort of shooting conflict, it's place in history will be quite limited, and controversial.

The Raptor is the world's first true stealth fighter. The first of the fifth generation. Even if it was replaced next year, it would have a place in history.

And none of the teen-series fighters saw combat in their first decade of US service.

[quote="firstimpulse"]

huggy wrote:

And none of the teen-series fighters saw combat in their first decade of US service.

"US service" is not a criteria.
The Israelis had it in combat quickly, and got their first Eagle kill (1979) less than 4 years after the jet being placed into service (1976).

Being "first" doesn't always guarantee "significance". We can find plenty of examples.

firstimpulse wrote:

huggy wrote:

mongo wrote:

I hope the Raptor will find its place in history someday just as the F-15, F-16, and the F-4 Phantom were.

Unless it ends up in some sort of shooting conflict, it's place in history will be quite limited, and controversial.

The Raptor is the world's first true stealth fighter. The first of the fifth generation. Even if it was replaced next year, it would have a place in history.

And none of the teen-series fighters saw combat in their first decade of US service.

Unfortunately, if it was retired tomorrow it would probably be remembered as a wasteful defense purchase by most people. However, the F-117 was also seen as a waste until Jan 1991 when it single handedly destroyed the Iraqi command and control system. I'd bet that the F-22 needs to see combat and produce some highly effective results before ever being written in a positive light in the history books. Hardly anyone outside the military (including office holders) cares about Red Flag simulated kill ratios and training performance. While I personally believe all of the hype and agree that it will dominate in any conceivable battlespace, somebody needs to use it in anger before we can convert any of the nonbelievers.

Think B-36....

sketch22 wrote:

Unfortunately, if it was retired tomorrow it would probably be remembered as a wasteful defense purchase by most people. However, the F-117 was also seen as a waste until Jan 1991 when it single handedly destroyed the Iraqi command and control system. I'd bet that the F-22 needs to see combat and produce some highly effective results before ever being written in a positive light in the history books. Hardly anyone outside the military (including office holders) cares about Red Flag simulated kill ratios and training performance. While I personally believe all of the hype and agree that it will dominate in any conceivable battlespace, somebody needs to use it in anger before we can convert any of the nonbelievers.

President Clinton really did care when Capt. O'Grady's F-16 was shot down and spent 6 days in hostile territory. Several documentaries describe his reaction to the event. It was definitely memorable event in his Presidency. He also met with Capt. O'Grady when he returned to the US.

neurotech wrote:

sketch22 wrote:

Unfortunately, if it was retired tomorrow it would probably be remembered as a wasteful defense purchase by most people. However, the F-117 was also seen as a waste until Jan 1991 when it single handedly destroyed the Iraqi command and control system. I'd bet that the F-22 needs to see combat and produce some highly effective results before ever being written in a positive light in the history books. Hardly anyone outside the military (including office holders) cares about Red Flag simulated kill ratios and training performance. While I personally believe all of the hype and agree that it will dominate in any conceivable battlespace, somebody needs to use it in anger before we can convert any of the nonbelievers.

President Clinton really did care when Capt. O'Grady's F-16 was shot down and spent 6 days in hostile territory. Several documentaries describe his reaction to the event. It was definitely memorable event in his Presidency. He also met with Capt. O'Grady when he returned to the US.

What does the one have to do with the other?

I was a little surprised Tyndall's Raptors were flying again as soon as they were after the crash. The accident was on Thursday, and they were back to flying a full schedule on Monday. Sounds like they have a pretty good idea on cause, or at least what's not the cause. The pilot declared an IFE for left generator failure and was returning to base when the jet went down. He's an IP, and I heard he gave a really good debrief.

retchief70 wrote:

I was a little surprised Tyndall's Raptors were flying again as soon as they were after the crash. The accident was on Thursday, and they were back to flying a full schedule on Monday. Sounds like they have a pretty good idea on cause, or at least what's not the cause. The pilot declared an IFE for left generator failure and was returning to base when the jet went down. He's an IP, and I heard he gave a really good debrief.

Dual generator failure? It's happened before in other jets.

The F-22 has extensive built-in diagnostic systems & CSFDR, so chances are they were able to get a good idea on what happened, before they analyzed all the wreckage.

count_to_10 wrote:

What does the one have to do with the other?

Yeah, neurotech,... you lost me on your post.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Raptor Down at Tyndall